Ernest Leyba v. State
2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 10067
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Leyba was convicted of first-degree murder after admitting the stabbing; the jury decided whether he acted in self-defense.
- State's theory: Leyba killed Tate during a drug transaction and attempted to rob Jackson; eyewitness Jackson testified Leyba stabbed Tate unprovoked.
- Leyba testified he acted in self-defense, claiming Jackson had threatened him and had a gun; no gun was found and Jackson denied having one.
- At trial the State impeached Leyba with multiple prior convictions (1988–2008); defense objected to convictions older than ten years.
- The principal legal dispute on appeal concerned admission of Leyba’s prior convictions under Texas Rule of Evidence 609 (including whether the common-law “tacking” doctrine survives).
- The trial court excluded evidence of Tate’s pending narcotics charge pretrial, but Leyba never offered the evidence at trial to obtain a ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Leyba) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of 2008 assault and 2005 burglary for impeachment | 2008 assault not a crime of moral turpitude; 2005 burglary prejudicial | These were non-remote felonies admissible for impeachment | Forfeited on appeal (no timely objections); not reviewed on merits |
| Admissibility of pre-2000 convictions under Rule 609(b) (remoteness) | Older convictions are too remote and inadmissible | Rule 609 permits admission if probative value substantially outweighs prejudice | 1996 DUI (not a felony) and several pre-2000 convictions were erroneously admitted, but errors were harmless |
| Use of tacking doctrine to combine remote convictions with later ones | Tacking should allow earlier convictions to be considered via subsequent convictions | Rule 609's plain text bars tacking; only Rule 609(b) standard applies to >10-year-old convictions | Court rejects tacking; Rule 609(b) governs remoteness — probative value must "substantially outweigh" prejudice |
| Exclusion of victim Tate’s pending narcotics charge | Evidence of Tate’s charge was relevant to show he was first aggressor | Trial court limited such evidence pretrial; State opposed admission at trial without voir dire/offering | Error not preserved: Leyba never offered the evidence at trial or made an offer of proof; issue forfeited |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Menchaca, 854 S.W.2d 128 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (rules of evidence replaced Art. 38.29 in criminal cases)
- McClendon v. State, 509 S.W.2d 851 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974) (pre-rule common-law remoteness standard for impeachment convictions)
- Crisp v. State, 470 S.W.2d 58 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971) (common-law discussion of "too remote" convictions)
- Penix v. State, 488 S.W.2d 86 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972) (treatment of remoteness under common law)
- Theus v. State, 845 S.W.2d 874 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (factors for weighing impeachment probative value vs. prejudice)
- Hankins v. State, 180 S.W.3d 177 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005) (rejecting tacking; applying Rule 609(b) exclusivity)
- Morales v. State, 32 S.W.3d 862 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (harmless-error review guidance for nonconstitutional errors)
- Johnson v. State, 967 S.W.2d 410 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (standard for harmless nonconstitutional error)
- King v. State, 953 S.W.2d 266 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (substantial-rights analysis for nonconstitutional error)